More Bad Bets
Ed Morrisey raises a very, very good point today. Harry Reid has called an unusual Saturday session of the Senate to try to invoke cloture on debate over a non-binding resolution. Republicans are vowing to stand firm unless and until Reid allows an alternative bill to be considered. That alternative bill would pledge that the Congress will not cut off funds for the troops. Reid is very afraid of that bill because it will likely split the Democrats.
The AP's Anne Flaherty reports that "several" GOP Senators will support the legislation, but that will probably only happen if the bill passes cloture. Reid once again will not allow competing amendments to come to the floor, especially not the Gregg bill, which pledges no unilateral Congressional decrease in funding for the Iraq war during this session. That bill splits the Democrats more than it does the Republicans, which is why Reid fears it. The Majority Leader said yesterday that even a failed cloture vote will put Senators on record. However, that's exactly why he won't allow a vote on the Gregg bill; it will put Democrats on record as supporting the war and reveal the split between the anti-war activists and the moderates, and it will put at least two Democratic presidential contenders in a tight spot, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Watch Lieberman carefully. He has no love for Harry Reid's leadership after the last election, and he has made clear that the Democrats have angered him with their political grandstanding. He threatened to bolt the Democratic caucus if they started pressing for a cutoff of funds, but he may tire of his peers well before that stage, especially with this Saturday session.
Lieberman could withdraw from the Democratic caucus if pushed too far. There is a lot going on right now. Trying to cut funding for the troops in combat may well destroy the Democratic majority in the Senate. And no matter how the members of Congress try to dress that "slow bleed" strategy up as a readiness issue, the fact is that troops in combat will pay the price for these cheap, partisan political stunts.
By Former Republican, Saturday, 17 February , 2007 @ 10:13 am
The Democrats are doing “cheap, partisan political stunts?”? I disagree. A lot of Democrats and some Republicans think the war is effectively lost and that the only thing left to do is to minimize the damage to US interests. Most Republicans think (or claim to think) that the war is not yet lost. So we need a debate in the country. Right now American public opinion is incoherent. On the one hand, Americans are not willing to accept defeat. On the other hand, Americans are not willing to accept years more of combat. We need a debate to resolve this issue. We should have started the debate years ago. The Democrats are doing nonbinding resolutions right now to set the stage for serious debate. They are proceeding the way they are precisely to defend themselves against cheap, partisan political claims that “the troops in combat will pay the price.”
Claiming the troops will pay the price is just emotional rhetoric. Congress has the power of the purse and ought to be able to use it to cut off funding for the war, if that is the will of the majority, which it may well be in the near future. If Congress cuts off funding, it is a certainty that they will allow enough time for Bush to withdraw the troops in an orderly manner. So I don’t see any danger to the troops, unless Bush intentionally leaves them in harm’s way.
By Gaius, Saturday, 17 February , 2007 @ 10:29 am
Keep spinning for them. It won’t work. They will suffer politically for this.
By Former Republican, Saturday, 17 February , 2007 @ 5:52 pm
The way I see it, the Democrats know they are taking a political risk, but are doing it anyway, in part because of principle and in part to satisfy their base’s demands. You may well be right that they will suffer politically. Me, I don’t know. We have all had lessons on how hard it is to predict the future.
How about the Republicans who are voting with Democrats on this issue? What’s your explanation for Senator Hagel, Senator Warner, etc.?